Thomas v. Primus, 148 Conn. App. 28

Plaintiffs (William Thomas et al.) own property on Camp Street that includes a 25-foot by 300-foot strip (“passway”) running from the public road to the defendant’s land to the east.
Defendant (Bruno Primus) owns a 1.25-acre parcel that is landlocked and abuts the plaintiffs’ eastern boundary; both parcels were originally one lot owned by Martha Thomas.
In 1959 Martha Thomas conveyed the landlocked parcel to Arthur Primus with an understanding (attended by the defendant) that access would be via the passway; defendant took possession in 1969 and plaintiffs acquired the western parcel (including the passway) in 2002.
When plaintiffs attempted to sell in 2008–2009, the prospective buyers withdrew after defendant asserted a right to use the passway; plaintiffs sued to quiet title and the defendant counterclaimed for an easement.
The trial court found an easement by necessity and by implication in favor of the defendant and rejected plaintiffs’ laches defense; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an easement by necessity exists over the passway	No — predecessor had bonds for deed enabling purchase of alternative access; defendant failed to show title searches of adjacent properties; grantor/grantee did not intend an easement	Yes — defendant’s parcel is presently landlocked, passway has been traditional means of access, prior purchase option expired and is not a present reasonable alternative; intent is irrelevant where necessity exists	Court affirmed: easement by necessity exists because present reasonable necessity was shown and evidence (maps, deeds, testimony) supported the finding
Whether defendant’s claim is barred by laches	Yes — defendant delayed decades before asserting the right; plaintiffs prejudiced by cancelled sale	No — delay excusable because defendant acted only after learning sale threatened his access; no prejudice shown from delay	Court affirmed: laches did not bar the claim because delay was not inexcusable and plaintiffs did not show prejudice

Collins v. Prentice, 15 Conn. 39 (establishes public-policy basis for easements by necessity)
Hollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389 (defines easement by necessity and that only reasonable necessity is required)
Christensen v. Reed, 105 Conn. App. 578 (discusses when title searches of adjacent properties may be required)
Schultz v. Barker, 15 Conn. App. 696 (places burden on party seeking easement by necessity to show reasonable necessity)
D'Addario v. Truskoski, 57 Conn. App. 236 (easement by necessity may arise after conveyance due to changed circumstances)
Pender v. Matranga, 58 Conn. App. 19 (recognizes easement of necessity where parcel becomes landlocked)
Marshall v. Martin, 107 Conn. 32 (test of necessity includes whether reasonable substitute access on grantee’s estate can be created at reasonable cost)
O'Brien v. Coburn, 46 Conn. App. 620 (intent of parties is irrelevant to existence of easement by necessity)
Caminis v. Troy, 112 Conn. App. 546 (lays out elements of laches: inexcusable delay and prejudice)